R v. Weisz

Case [2008] QCA 313

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Weisz [2008] QCA 313

PARTIES:

R
v
WEISZ, John George
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 247 of 2007
SC No 887 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Mackenzie AJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – defence admitted at trial that a man called Cullen killed the deceased person by stabbing him with a knife – prosecution admitted at trial that the appellant was not present at the killing – the prosecution case against the appellant relied on s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(d) or s 8 Criminal Code – appellant and others discussed Cullen giving the deceased a lethal injection of drugs called a "hot shot" – the method of killing discussed prior to the offence was not the method ultimately used by Cullen – circumstantial evidence linking the appellant with Cullen – judge directed jury on s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(d) and s 8 Criminal Code – whether it was open to the jury to find that the common unlawful purpose under s 8 was to do serious harm to the deceased by whatever means seemed appropriate to Cullen – whether the guilty verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLARY LIABILITY – COMPLICITY – STATUTORY PROVISIONS – CODE PROVISIONS – judge used term "the offence" in directing the jury on s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(d), s 8 and s 9 Criminal Code – judge directed on s 9 after explaining s 7(1)(b) and s 7(1)(d) and before discussing s 8 – whether, in the light of s 2 Criminal Code, the judge ought to have particularised the act constituting "the offence" for the jury – whether the judge's directions were unclear as to how the jury could use s 9 – whether the judge misdirected the jury on s 7(1)(b), s 7(1)(d) or s 8 Criminal Code

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – Cullen gave two statements to the police that differed on some details of the killing – Cullen's second statement said he withheld information in the first statement because the appellant threatened him – prosecution did not rely on the evidence of threats as showing a consciousness of guilt on behalf of the appellant – defence counsel did not ask for the jury to be given an Edwards direction – whether an Edwards direction was appropriate

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO…

Continue reading R v. Weisz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Weisz [2008] QCA 313
Case
[2008] QCA 313
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder under s 8 of the Criminal Code for his involvement in the death of a man called Cullen, who was not present at the killing. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence, and that there were misdirections in the judge's directions to the jury.

The legal issues in the appeal concerned whether the jury could find that the common unlawful purpose was to do serious harm to the deceased by whatever means seemed appropriate to Cullen, and whether the judge's directions to the jury were clear and accurate in relation to the relevant sections of the Criminal Code. The appellant also argued that the judge should have directed the jury to consider the appellant's lies as corroborative of Cullen's evidence.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the appellant was complicit in the killing, despite the fact that Cullen was not present at the killing. The court also found that the judge's directions to the jury were not misdirections, and that there was no need for an Edwards direction. The court held that the appellant's lies could not be used to corroborate Cullen's evidence, and that there was no need for the judge to direct the jury to consider the appellant's lies as corroborative of Cullen's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that there were no misdirections in the judge's directions to the jury. The appellant's conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.